... and every sentence that I spoke began and ended in ellipses...

Beauty Queen targets Parliament

There's so much wrong with this that I don't quite know where to start.

On one hand, this is such an effective satire on the current state of politics that it might as well be a hoax. Just look at the leaders of the main parties in the UK right now, for starters. Can you spot the odd one out? Yes, Mr. Brown. You can also tell that, technically, he wasn't even elected, because in the media age charisma is a virtue and frankly, gets people elected. Anyway, style over substance is so endemic in politics these days (at least at the lofty heights of a party) then, hey, why not go the whole hog and elect a full-time beauty queen to a parliamentary seat! (Even though she's unlikely to be elected, the fact that she's campaigning on the ideal of a glamourous House of Commons is significant)

But on the other hand, the fact that this isn't a satire says an awful lot, as well. Simply through the virtue of being a pretty face - and despite the fact that Beauties for Britain isn't a registered political party according to the Electoral Commission - she's attracting more media attention than any of the minor parties contesting the election, which only shows the strength of objectification in the mainstream media.

Does politics even need to be glamourised? I would argue that it's seen enough glamourisation over the last decade. And how is she even qualified for a political role? Not very: she acknowledges that herself. How exactly does she herself "really care about women" when she's calling for more "beautiful women abound in the higher echelons of government" (emphasis mine)? Last time I checked, someone's general attractiveness did not make them competent leaders or thinkers - why does she insist on categorising women as "beautiful" - or the unspoken "ugly"? There should be more women in higher governmental positions, yes, I agree with this, but quite honestly the way she's talking only infers unattractive women are inferior.

I find it quite ironic that the by-election she is standing in was caused by the death of Gwyneth Dunwoody, the longest-serving female MP.

ETA: I just remembered who this reminded me of: Silvio Berlusconi, the right-wing Italian Prime Minister and media monopolist, who described right-wing female politicians as "more beautiful" than those on the left. (Source)

The elections are proving endlessly painful for yours truly.

Firstly, there's the wait. Last night, it was said the results would be available around lunchtime. Then at lunchtime, they said early evening. When I get home from college, they said around 8.30. Then it went to 10.00, then midnight, and I don't think they're going to be all wrapped up around midnight quite frankly. It looks very likely it'll go to second preferences.

Secondly, and as much as it pains me to say this, Johnson's probably going to win. And I thought I wanted to punch every single Tory I saw on the local election coverage last night for smugness. Bastards.

Thirdly, I've lost all faith in the BBC. The election coverage last night was diabolical, immature, and gimmicky.

Fourthly, have I mentioned how terrified I am of England under the Conservatives? If this was a general election they would have won with a landslide. This result may have consequences mirroring 1995, which was disastrous for John Major.

Just before I go though, sorry about sporadic updates. My personal life isn't really remarkable right now, and I haven't had the attention span for blogging lately.

ETA:

"I think we all know what the result's going to be (unless Ken and Boris mysteriously cancel each other out and suddenly Brian becomes king) but let's sit here and wait, because otherwise having sat here for twelve hours might seem a little pointless."

And basically Anna Pickard sums up exactly how I feel right now.

I'm really quite angry this week. It's a good sort of anger (as in the concentrated, positive energy opposed to the hopeless, apathetic anger I used to feel more often than not). It'd be even better if I could find something productive to funnel it into, so I'll just have to settle for ranting on here. And this isn't even all of the stuff that's bothering me lately.

In addition to donkeys apparently being more important than women suffering domestic abuse (oh, and my mum said she didn't donate to women's aid charities because "they brought it on themselves" - how about no.):

( Lithuania is being pressurised by the Catholic Church to ban abortion )

( A bit of over-optimism from the Independent )

( Low turn-out in mayoral elections is encouraged by Conservatives )

There has been some good news, though: Bush's approval rating has sunk to an all time low of 28%. Only positive news for the Democrats recently, it seems.

ETA: Another point I wanted to raise. This quotation has been in my mind recently, you see:

"I'm thinking of taking my family and getting out of this country soon, sometime in the next few years. It's cold and it's mean spirited and I don't like it here anymore." Alan Moore, 1988.

This is how I feel right now. However, this was written under the Thatcher administration. I'm writing under a New Labour government. And somehow, that's the most telling thing about the way this country is being run, to me.

In addition to my previous post, a report by New Philanthropy Capital has discovered that more Britons donate money in support of one group of donkeys than to three major women's aid charities.

The ratio is £1:85p. Which doesn't sound like a big difference, does it? Except it does when you take into account the size of the organisations.

Now, obviously looking down on people for their choice of charity to support isn't the right thing to do. Finding reasons for their support for a particular charity is more important, and especially finding reasons for their preferences. What do people take into account when donating to charities? Is it merely because the animal welfare groups have more prominence? Because if it is then it's a never-ending circle: More money = more advertising = more prominence = more awareness = more donation. What is it that makes donkey sanctuaries more visible than issues which primarily affect women, such as domestic violence and rape? Why do people think animals are more important than human beings, through philanthropic spending? Actually, it's not just animals: the Royal Opera House gets almost as much money (£83mn) than all 200 of the largest charities supporting women (£97m).

Sadly, I'm not as shocked as I should be.

(source)

Poll #1152592 WHICH ARE YOU ATTRACTED TO? PLEASE REPLY
Open to: All, results viewable to: All

CLICK ON WHATEVER NAME YOU LIKE MOST. STUDY THEM. ABSORB. VOTE. THIS IS ELLIE, BTW.